The Second Amendment: What it Says and What it Means

I have often heard people complain about how “confusing” the Second Amendment’s wording is. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Part of that is due to its somewhat archaic construction and part of that comes from changes in language and the meaning of words over the decades. And unfortunately . . .

Part of that comes from deliberate obfuscation on the part of those working to promote and exploit any uncertainty they can in order to press for their ultimate goal of complete victim disarmament. They claim that the prefatory clause (A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state) is not an explanation of why the right is important and must be protected but instead is a limitation on the main clause (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).

So are there examples of Second Amendment style prefatory statement grammar we can find which would counter this argument? How about this phrase from the NH Constitution:

The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

Or, from the Massachusetts Constitution:

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth.

Obviously the Founders set great stock in the free press, but in addition these statements quite clearly demonstrate this somewhat archaic construction of a prefatory clause followed by the operative (or independent) clause. Keeping that construction in mind, let’s look at a Second Amendment analogue. Suppose the First Amendment contained the phrase:

A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to read and write books shall not be infringed.

Do you think anyone would argue that this means literacy and book ownership should be limited to registered voters? Of course not. Admittedly analogies are not logic; I believe, however, that this analogy is persuasive. As for those who argue that “Unlike guns, books never killed anyone” I would say Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Satanic Verses, Stephen King’s Rage (originally titled Getting It On), etc.

But let us suppose for a moment that the militia clause were restrictive; what constitutes “well regulated” and who comprises the “militia”?

The antis would have you believe that “well regulated” means that the militia should be thoroughly bound by laws and strictures, but that is a more recent meaning of the phrase. To find out what it meant in the 18th century we turn to Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (published in 1755). Johnson’s dictionary was considered by most to be the pre-eminent English language dictionary until the publication of the Oxford English Dictionary some 175 years later. Johnson defines regulate as:

To adjust by rule or method

To direct

If we look up adjust we find:

To regulate; to put in order

To make accurate

To make conformable

And the definition of direct is given as:

To aim in a straight line

To point against as a mark

To regulate; to adjust

Finally the Oxford English Dictionary itself defines regulated as:

Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard.

Of troops: properly disciplined (Obsolete rare).

and gives the following example of its use in that sense:

1690 London Gazette No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great allarm in in Daupine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 men of regulated troops on that side.

We can also look at the writing of the Founders and their contemporaries to glean their understanding of the term. From a letter General Washington wrote to Major General Philip Schuyler in October of 1776:

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works[1] and consequently of the Number of Men necessary to man them. If your present Numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the Deficiency out of the best regulated Militia that could be got. Some might likewise be useful in bringing up Supplies and fill the Places of Men who would render more Service with Arms in their hands.

Thirty years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights writers still used the phrase “well regulated” to mean properly functioning. In her Letters from Alabama on Various Subjects Anne Royall (considered by many to be the first female journalist in the country) we find the following in a letter dated January 29, 1822 written from Huntsville, Alabama:

[Huntsville] has now a population of 1300 inhabitants. Two churches have been built since I have been here; a theatre, (now burnt,) and a number of dwelling houses. … They have a very fine fire engine, and a well regulated company.

Obviously this does not mean that the fire company was thoroughly bound by laws and strictures, but rather that the firefighters were well trained and practiced to work together to fight fires.

Now that we have determined that “well regulated” means “properly functioning”, where can we look to find out who comprises the militia? The antis would have us believe that the militia is merely an obsolete term for the National Guard; hence the Second Amendment only applies to National Guardsmen. Fortunately there are numerous sources available to refute this. During the debates in Virginia on whether to ratify or reject the new Constitution which had come out of Philadelphia, George Mason (sometimes called the Father of the Bill of Rights) said:

A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

During those same debates Founder Richard Henry Lee (writing as M.T. Cicero to “The Citizens of America”) explained quite explicitly just who and what constituted the well regulated militia:

No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defence of the state . . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

In addition to these writings there is also legislative history, some contemporary to the Founding and some more recent, stating who is in the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 defined militia in Section 1:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

In fact current U.S. Code contains a definition of the militia in Title 10-A Chapter 13 § 311:

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

b) The classes of the militia are—

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Which means that, well, pretty much everybody is in the militia.

So what now that we know who’s in the militia the next logical question is what comprised the militia’s duties and responsibilities? And for that we can turn to the Constitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

I freely admit that before I started studying the subject in some detail I had no idea there was any sort of public safety or civic responsibility component to the militia’s duties. Like most people I was familiar with the militia’s military duties, but in an age before police forces the militia also assisted in upholding the law. This common law precept actually dates back 500 years, to 13th century England and the Statute of Winchester which required that anyone who witnessed a crime must set up a hue and cry. All able-bodied men hearing the outcry were required cease their work and take up the chase, continuing the hue and cry from town to town until the miscreant was apprehended and turned over to the authorities.

As for suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions the militia did not live up to the time-burnished image we have of them today. As the Revolution continued, militias (who could elect their own officers) started refusing to operate outside of their home regions, and were plagued by desertion. And although the militia was instrumental in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion, President Washington was dismayed by their poor organization, dearth of coordination and lack of trained officers and engineers. It was the performance of the militias in the War of 1812, however, which sounded their death knell. They were again reluctant to serve outside of their home states, lacked discipline and, when operating outside of their home region routinely proved unable to stand up to the British regulars.

All of this, however, while enlightening is really immaterial to the Second Amendment since, in fact, the militia clause is dependent upon and not a limitation of the operative clause.

On to the Operative Clause

So now we get to the meat of the Second Amendment:

… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I believe I have shown that the right to keep and bear arms is not reserved to the militia, so then whose rights are protected here? For everyone except lawyers and the antis that is a pretty straightforward question: the right of the people refers to the people. To wit, the same individuals whose rights are protected in the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…

And the same individuals whose right to peaceable assembly and petition for redress are protected in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are in fact several contemporaneous examples where the phrase “the people” is used to enumerate what are plainly meant as individual rights. An excellent example can be found in the various articles in the Declaration of Rights found in Pennsylvania’s 1776 Constitution:

X. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure …

XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments …

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state …

Similarly the Virginia Declaration of Rights (which was actually passed separately from their Constitution) states in Article III:

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community …

And in Article XIII the Declaration states:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state …

If the term the people was meant in a collective sense, as in a group, then specifying that the militia was composed of the body of the people would be nonsensical.

In addition to these examples, the Supreme Court has actually ruled specifically that when the Constitution says “the people” it means individuals. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) the Court stated:

“The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community…

Beyond these court cases, however, lies simple logic. Throughout the Constitution “the people” are referred to as having “rights” and “powers” whereas governments have “powers” or “authority”, never “rights”. Obviously then the people referred to in the Second Amendment are not a select government entity but instead individual citizens. Tenche Coxe makes this clear in his letter of February 20, 1788 to the Pennsylvania Gazette:

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are these militia? Are they not ourselves? … Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. [emphasis in original]

So That’s Whose Rights Are Protected, Now What Constitutes ‘Keeping’, ‘Bearing’ and ‘Arms’?

While most people have no problem understanding that the phrase to keep and bear arms can and does refer to the activity of an individual, anti-gun groups like the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence [sic] have argued that it has an exclusively military meaning. From the group’s amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller:

The debates surrounding adoption of the Second Amendment, and in particular Madison’s initial proposal to the First Congress, make clear that the framers understood the right to “keep and bear Arms” to refer only to military purposes.

Unfortunately for the Bradys, this is simply not the case. For example both Connecticut and Alabama state in their constitutions’ Declaration of Rights:

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

Some might try and argue that defence of the State implies service in a militia but since the right specified is for personal defense as well as defense of the state that position is indefensible[2].

Additionally, in their statement announcing the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 the New York State delegates listed a number of rights which were not part of the Constitution, but which they felt existed despite that exclusion. Specifically:

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;

Showing that they, at least, believed that the right to keep and bear arms was a right of the people separate from militia service.

However, there are numerous instances of the phrase “bear arms” being used to describe a civilian’s carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the “people” [or “citizen” or “citizens”] “to bear arms in defense of themselves [or ‘himself’] and the state,” or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage “bear arms” was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.

As Judge Garwood’s citation makes clear the concept of keeping and bearing arms was not relegated purely to military service, but also to the fundamental right of self-defense (which we will address again later).

For the definition of keep we can turn once again to Johnson and his dictionary. The first five definitions of keep are given as:

To retain; not to lose

To have in custody.

To preserve; not to let go.

To preserve in a state of security.

To protect; to guard.

All these definitions are very close to our contemporary understanding of the word’s meaning so the term keep really need no interpretation. To keep arms means to have them in your possession, not locked up in a militia armory and at a gun range.

So what did the Founders consider to be arms? According to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary arms are:

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility (as in To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.)
3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.
4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.

The Bill of Rights was written in a time when the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms included a one-ball musket and maybe a long bayonet, or a one-shot handgun.[4]

We have available today many things which were not around when the Bill of Rights was written. For example television, radio, high speed printing presses, the internet, cell phones, video cell phones, Mormonism and Reform Judaism; none of these existed in the early 1790s but are people like John and Jeff suggesting that none of these are protected under the First Amendment? Of course they are all protected, because the core right involved (freedom of the press and religion) is not affected by the instruments used to exercise it.

But even if we were to allow such limits, the fact of the matter is that people had access to far more than single shot weapons in the 1780s. There were six-shot handguns like the pepper-box revolver made by London-based firearms manufacturer Henry Nock (inventor of the Nock volley gun capable of firing simultaneously from its 7 barrels) or the Continental firm of Segallas.

We had 9-shot handguns like this one, sold by Christie’s for a little over $30,000 in December of 2006. It is described as:

Weapons using the “Lorenzoni System” (as described by ForgottenWeapons.com in a video here) first appeared in Europe around 1680. The mechanism worked by loading several shots worth of powder and ball in the frame. The operating lever loaded a ball and a set amount of powder into the chamber and cocked the locking mechanism. Obviously the machining on these weapons had to be fine enough to seal the combustion away from the remaining powder, but the design was successful enough that it appeared in long guns as well, specifically the 7 shot Cookson flintlock rifle.

Although there are no known examples of it, the Belton Flintlock was said to fire 16 or 20 balls in 16 seconds or less, the 18th Century version of “spray and pray”.

Moving away from firearms, the Austrian army fielded a 22 ball capacity air rifle good for 30 shots before the air reservoir needed changing or recharging. Many historians partially credit the survival of the Lewis and Clark expedition to the fact that they carried such a Girandoni air rifle (purchased by Lewis out of his own pocket) which they demonstrated whenever they met a new Indian tribe. With ballistics comparable to a modern day .45 ACP, its virtually silent operation and its ability to fire many shots without reloading it would have been extremely intimidating even to people who were familiar with black powder weapons, much less those who had never so much as seen a firearm.

So it is obvious that the Founders, being highly intelligent and well-educated men, must have been aware of many sorts of “high powered” and “high capacity” weapons available at that time. In addition, they were aware of the progress science had made in the previous few centuries and fully expected invention and innovation to continue, as demonstrated by the Constitution’s Copyright Clause:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Indeed it is downright insulting to claim that the Founders would have been unable to predict that there would be changes and developments in weapons, which probably explains why they used the general term “arms” instead of specifying particular weapons that were to be protected.

Okay, But What Does “Infringed” Mean?

Well going back to our friend Mr. Johnson we find his definition is:

Infrin’ge, v. a. to violate, break a contract

Well that’s a little vague so perhaps Webster’s 1828 Dictionary had a more comprehensive definition:

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

Well that seems pretty straightforward. But maybe we should look for places where the Founders used the word and see if they meant the same thing. In the transcript of the June 8, 1789 House of Representatives’ debate on amending the Constitution we find James Madison suggesting for inclusion:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.[5]

This is followed two paragraphs later by the preliminary version of what would become the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[6]

During Massachusetts’ convention to ratify the Constitution, Samuel Adams proposed the following language be added:

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States …

I think from these we can see that our modern day version of shall not be infringed to mean is subject to reasonable regulation would not sit well with either Mr. Madison or Mr. Adams.

Okay So We’ve Got the Meanings of Each of the Words, but What Do They Mean When Put Together?

Putting all of these different words together, what does the Second Amendment actually mean? We are now departing from legalistic, historical and linguistic analysis and delving into my personal philosophy regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment, which, some of you may have surmised (given my penchant for quoting L. Neil Smith’s the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility[7]) is quite rigorous.

The Founders believed that a well-trained, properly functioning militia was essential to protecting the nation and preserving citizens’ liberty. As time passed, however, it became obvious that in practice the militia was ill-trained, undisciplined and poorly led which resulted in the creation of a standing army. But if we no longer require a militia, does that mean that the antis are right when they says that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic that should be dumped onto the ash heap of history?

Of course not! First of all, maintenance of a militia was only one of many reasons for having a Second Amendment. Secondly, despite many peoples’ belief to the contrary the Bill of Rights does not give us any rights.

Periodically (especially after a highly publicized mass shooting) there will be calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment. Supporters of this idea apparently believe that getting rid of the Second Amendment means that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice[8] will somehow go away. They are operating under the delusion that the Bill of Rights grants people rights; it does nothing of the kind. The Bill of Rights protects rights with which people are endowed by their Creator. Even the most cursory reading of the document should make that obvious. Let’s parse the First amendment, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble … etc.

Note that Congress is not creating these rights; the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, the press and assembly are all presumed to already exist. After all, if people did not already have these rights then there would be no need to prohibit Congress from infringing them.

How about the Fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated … etc.

There it is again; the [already existing] right of the people to be secure in their persons … etc. shall not be violated. Just by virtue of being a human being you have the right to be left alone and not have government nosies snooping through your mail, phone records, searching your house, etc.

Likewise, the Second Amendment doesn’t say: A well-regulated militia … etc., the people are granted the right to keep and bear arms. No the way it’s worded presupposes that the people already have the right to keep and bear arms. So if it is a pre-existing right and that right shall not be infringed what gun laws are permissible?

How about, none?

The sole exception I would be willing to grant is that someone who is in some sort of locked down facility, be it a prison or a ward for the dangerously insane, should not have access to weapons. In other words, to quote National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea: “If a person can’t be trusted with a gun then they can’t be trusted without a custodian.

“But, but, but . . .” I hear someone spluttering in the background “surely you don’t mean criminals should have guns?!?” But, but, but . . . I do mean precisely that, and there are several reasons for my belief. First and foremost is the fact that there’s a difference between a malum prohibitum and malum in se law, especially as regards gun control. Malum prohibitum literally means wrong (or evil) because prohibited while malum in se means wrong/evil in and of itself. A good example of mala prohibita laws is those regarding so-called “assault weapons”; the fact that your weapon has a flash-hider, a telescoping stock or a bayonet lug isn’t something that’s wrong all by itself. Laws against shooting someone (outside of DGU[9]s) are good examples of mala in se laws because harming someone else is obviously wrong in and of itself. Got it?

The primary purpose of mala prohibita gun laws isn’t to punish bad behavior, but to prevent it. Laws against felons possessing guns are an excellent example of this. The idea behind these laws is that they will prevent crime by preventing access to one of the tools criminals use. The problem is that when you pass laws which are primarily focused on preventing some sort of crime and they don’t work, the laws’ proponents will say that the laws need to be made stricter or some “loophole” or another needs to be closed, when the fact of the matter is they should just be repealed.

I have often suggested that since gun control laws don’t work, they should be repealed. One of the two standard retorts I get from the antis is “well since laws against murder don’t stop all murders should we just go ahead and repeal them?” This is why I explained the difference between mala prohibita and mala in se laws; although they do have a deterrent effect, the primary purpose of laws against murder is not to prevent murders but rather to punish people who commit them.

Most gun control laws, however, aren’t written with an eye towards punishing bad behavior but rather trying to prevent it. As I mentioned earlier, various “assault weapon” laws are good examples, as are background checks, prohibitions on felons or domestic offenders having guns, bans on concealed carry and bans on guns in certain locations (like schools, churches, government buildings, etc.); none of the proscribed items or behaviors actually cause any harm. Instead they are viewed as being precursors to criminal behavior.

Second, the right to self-defense antedates the Constitution, the Magna Carta, Hammurabi’s Code, the Bible, written language, hell it even antedates spoken language because even animals have the right to defend themselves! This right should not go away merely because you have been convicted of a crime; and the safest, most effective self-defense tool in existence is the gun (more on that later).

Actually I take it back; there are some reasonable regulations on the Second Amendment that I can fully support. I don’t think that politicians, bureaucrats or cops should be imprisoned for any term of more than 10 years or fined more than $100,000 (just like any other civil rights violation under 18 USC §242) for violating (i.e. infringing) or attempting to violate, someone’s Second Amendment rights. Of course if the violation led to the death, kidnapping (i.e. “wrongful arrest”), attempted kidnapping or sexual abuse (i.e. strip search) of a citizen exercising their rights I would set the maximum term at life with no possibility of parole.

Somehow I don’t think this is what most people think of when you bring up the subject of “reasonable regulations”.

55 Responses to The Second Amendment: What it Says and What it Means

Gun rights for violent felons? No wonder we have trouble being taken seriously.

Codrea says: “If a person can’t be trusted with a gun then they can’t be trusted without a custodian.” Well, he’s right. Never trust a violent felon, ever. They are dangerous even with a custodian, in prison, where they routinely find ways to kill and maim other, equally dangerous violent felons, guards or anyone else they can lay their hands on. Once released, 65-70% will be rearrested for the same or worse crime within three years — and those are only the ones who are caught.

Facilitating gun possession for the neighborhood serial rapist? Sure, if the Constitution is a suicide pact. If that’s really what the Second Amendment means, then we’d be better off repealing it NOW.

I do not believe that the Founders would have supported gun rights for criminals. On the contrary, our gun rights are protected by 2A so we can defend ourselves against them, which is only one reason why I’m so devoted to 2A.

Actually yes, repeat offenders were pretty rare. If you survived your first run in with the law and got prison instead of the rope the prisons were so hellish as to break the spirit and will of most who entered them.

As for the 2A. How well educated do you have to be to figure it out? I have a GED and I know what it means. Maybe the well educated brain has been trained to ignore logic and reason.

jwm-some people are educated beyond their intelligence. My pastor says that some educated people have more degrees than a thermometer and still don’t have a lick of sense… Common sense ain’t so common these days.

Felons are people too; statistically, if they aren’t killed beforehand, the great majority give up the criminal life style in their thirties and forties; to deny them for a life time the ability to effectively defend themselves and any family they might have is an abomination!

Many states had as part of thier laws before the life time federal law was passed in the sixties that felons could get thier gun rights back after a certain number of years probation, five years as an example.

I think the life time federal law should be repealed and felons should be given a chance to show they have been rehabilitated after they’ve “paid” thier debt to society.

You make a good point. Yet at the same time, there has to be a price for their acts (yes, besides the actual custodial sentence) and protection for the non-felons in the population. I don’t know all the details about pardons, discharges etc., and I am sure rules vary from state to state, but if you’ve kept your nose clean for 10 years after the end or your parole or probation, then I would accept the restoration of the right to own long guns, kept for home defense, hunting or competition. No CCW or open carry though. Sorry absolultists, I just don’t trust that much.

No, there does need to be punishment beyond the actual prison term or fine. That’s the point of the term or fine. If it’s not enough of a punishment, it should be more severe (and none of this good behavior crap). But once you’ve served your time and paid your fine, you’re just as much a part of society as anyone else.

Punishment for a crime is not restricted to incarceration and fines.
People say,”He paid his debt to society so the slate should be wiped clean.”
Being locked up doesn’t benefit society other than forcing cessation of harm.
No debt is being paid.
A sexual predator can never undo the harm he has done and reportedly never ceases to be a predator.
No matter what we decide, we should never forget these facts.

How unfortunate those most in need of this well formed lesson likely will never seek it out. This should be shared by those who “get it” with those unwilling or unable to sift meaning beyond the literal and contemporary. To the author, well said. To the readers, spread the word.

Of the three basic liberal arts–grammar, logic, and rhetoric–the control freaks fail the first two and have only a weak grasp of the third. Bruce, you have done an excellent job at all three.

My only quibble is that there needs to be some answer to the claim that the Second Amendment includes nuclear bombs and biological weapons. That’s easily addressed by noting that “arms” in this context is understood to mean personal weapons, not collective ones. Letters of marque, for example, authorizing a ship to be used as an agent of national power are dealt with elsewhere.

The English language has changed over 200 years. In 1791 the Meaning of the Second Amendment was very clear.

The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons”. American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. The American people still have some work to do with regard to taking back their rights.

Joseph Stalin was very fond on labeling his political rivals as “criminals”. Adolf Hitler preferred to label his rivals as “insane”. Any restrictions on the Second Amendment are a loophole for tyrants to use to disarm their opposition.

If you commit a crime and you do your time, you should be assimilated back into society with full rights. The current system in America does everything possible create return business for the Legal and Prison System. If they legalized drugs for example there would be no need for 80% of the police force in America.

It is also worth noting that Revolutionary War Hero, John Paul Jones, was a pirate and wanted criminal prior to joining the American cause for independence. Much of the same could be said for the Son’s of Liberty who participated in the Boston Tea Party.

Jeffrey Lyne Cox, a senior at San Gabriel High School in San Gabriel, California, took a semi-automatic rifle to school on April 26, 1988 and held a humanities class of about 60 students hostage for over 30 minutes before being tackled and disarmed by another student. A friend of Cox told the press that Cox had been inspired by the Kuwait Airways Flight 422 hijacking and by the novel Rage,[2] which Cox had read over and over again and with which he strongly identified.[3]

Dustin L. Pierce, a senior at Jackson County High School in McKee, Kentucky, armed himself with a shotgun and two handguns and took a history classroom hostage in a nine-hour standoff with police on September 18, 1989 that ended without injury. Police found a copy of Rage among the possessions in Pierce’s bedroom, leading to speculation that he had been inspired to carry out the plot of the novel.[4]

Barry Loukaitis, a student at Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington, walked from his house to the school on February 2, 1996, and entered his algebra classroom during fifth period. He opened fire at students, killing two and wounding another. He then fatally shot his algebra teacher, Leona Caires, in the chest. As his classmates began to panic, Loukaitis reportedly said, “This sure beats algebra, doesn’t it?” — a line erroneously believed to be taken from Rage. (No such line appears in King’s story. The closest is when Charlie Decker quips, “This sure beats panty raids.”) Hearing the gunshots, gym coach Jon Lane entered the classroom. Loukaitis was holding his classmates hostage and planned to use one hostage so he could safely exit the school. Lane volunteered as the hostage, and Loukaitis was keeping Lane at gunpoint with his rifle. Lane then grabbed the weapon from Loukaitis and wrestled him to the ground, then assisted the evacuation of students.[5]

I’m still writing it guys! I asked Robert to post sections here so the AI could poke holes in it and make suggestions/comments/queries that will help me improve it.
Right now I seem to be knocking out about a chapter a week so in all likelihood not before HanaRamaKwanzMas. Sorry guys!

I’m good up to the point on restoring gun rights to convicted felons. First of all, if more felons served the full length of their terms, then it would be less of an issue because many would be old men when they got out. A twenty year sentence should be 20 years in the pen, not five years plus 10 years of probation on the outside. But, we need to do that because we have too many people in prison.

Secondly, while on probation, the convicted felon, has not “paid his debt” so no guns during that period.

Finally, I see one big difference between denying guns to convicted felons and other types of restricted gun laws. In the latter case, the laws are set up to prevent a behavior when there is no proof that such behavior would ever take place. In the former case, the felon has already shown through their actions that they areccapable of certain behaviors and might do it again in the future.

What I would support would be to distinguish between different types of felonies. I have no issue with restoring gun rights to someone convicted of a non-violent felony such as embezzlement, fraud, or even robbery if no weapons or violence were involved. On the other hand, once you commit a violent crime, no guns for you, ever.

Let me further qualify my earlier response by saying that the gun would have to be used in a crime to qualify for lifetime revocation. A felony arrest simply because a guy had a gun in his possession – let’s say that for one reason or another he did not have a proper license, would not qualify for the lifetime ban. Only people who used a gun to commit a crime (or for that matter anyone who commits a violent crime using a weapon or not) would have the lifetime ban.

My old Marine Corps buddy is prohibited by Laughtenberg, and because (in Oklahoma) his offence was a class 3 felony. He had an altercation with his wife where, after he cut off the money so she couldn’t gamble it away anymore, she tried to hit him with a tire knocker. He disarmed her and left. She went to the ER, and was photographed with finger marks on her throat. He had never before had a run-in with the law; no previous violent tendencies, but had guns and a copy of “The Anarchist’s Cookbook.” He had also been a competitive shooter. The DA used this to convict him, he had two years’ probation & left OK. He was a successful mechanical engineer who had designed & built everything from oil drill bits to the C17 aircraft. Now he can’t find a job because he is a felon. And he’s no threat to society – which should be the final arbiter for prohibition: Does the person constitute a violent threat to society?
By the way, Martha Stewart is also a felon (she lied to Congress): Should SHE be prohibited from being able to defend herself?

When working in third-world countries many years ago I saw both “well regulated” and ad hoc militias play out several times where police protection was pathetically slow, ineffectual, and/or sparse.

In some cases thieves were beaten pretty severely in public places after being caught in the act red-handed. In one instance – I watched it go on for more then 30 minutes – the thief (with the stolen TV in his bicycle basket) was basically humiliated by 20+ locals including grannies and teens under the watchful eye of the neighborhood elder. The guy was shackled with baling wire and hit with switches (by the grannies), pushed around, and heckled. When two policemen finally showed up they took command and promptly cold-cocked the miscreant. In another instance, a couple teen thieves were roughed-up, tied, and held for the police in the aforementioned elder’s courtyard until morning.

Lastly, that same community had a vigorous neighborhood watch and 10 to 15 guys were summoned to arms – axe handles and flashlights – on a fairly regular basis, especially during the frequent nighttime power outages. As far as I could tell it was just the regular neighborhood guys, thugs were not at all welcome (and we foreigners were politely but firmly told to stand clear).

“The Founders believed that a well-trained, properly functioning militia was essential to protecting the nation and preserving citizens’ liberty. As time passed, however, it became obvious that in practice the militia was ill-trained, undisciplined and poorly led which resulted in the creation of a standing army. But if we no longer require a militia, does that mean that the antis are right when they says that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic that should be dumped onto the ash heap of history?”

The problem here lies not with the Second Amendment & the militias, but with the execution & regulation of the militias. As time passed, the militias became less regulated, in other words less trained & less prepared to fulfill their intended role. The Second Amendment allows the people the right to keep and bear arms, which hopefully the people will do. Owning & maintaining arms, as well as practice using those arms should allow a militia to focus it’s limited training time on aspects of military drill and tactics as opposed to the basics of safe & accurate use of firearms.

I disagree with Mr. Krafft’s idea to extend gun rights to felons. I think further research will show that from colonial times, felons and the insane were prohibited weapons. However, I don’t wish to argue the point.
I will certainly buy Krafft’s book as soon as it’s available, b/c his logic, scholarship, and research are some of the best I’ve ever seen on the Second Amendment. His arguments are compelling and easily understood.
This is one of those excellent efforts that will help pro-gun folks convince fence sitters and sympathizers of our cause who haven’t thought much about it of the rightness of our position(and maybe some open-minded antis, if there are such critters).Congratulations and thank you Sir!

Great article! Although I have some reservations about the guns for all felons thing, I agree with everything else wholeheartedly and I recognized the idea of all felons being allowed guns was out forth as personal opinion. This is something many people need to understand, not just for the 2nd amendment but for the whole Consitution and the Bill of Rights. The idea that so many people don’t have anything close to a good idea of the contents and their purpose of those two articles is shameful.

Most of this article is predicated on the ability for people to read and comprehend what they read. Seems ironic that you would write an article to argue this point. Your efforts are an exercise in futility because those who cannot understand the simplicity of the 2A are not capable of understanding anything more complex, such as your explanation of it.

The problem is not a matter of misunderstanding the 2A. The problem is the conscious choice to not understand it.

It was understood to include all manner of cannon, some of which were privately owned at the time, or kept by militias when taken from the reds. Adjusted for inflation, that would translate to at least fully operable tanks in the present. Remember, if the government decides to go all in on the tyranny, they won’t be doing the people the favor of using 18th century technology. If I remember correctly the Constitution was at its core supposed to provide an advantage to the people over the government.

Pertinent statements with regard to the purpose and intent of enumerating certain Rights in the Constitution of the United States:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
[ Excerpt as follows: ]
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED….”

Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

So for those of us that have passed our 45th birthday, we are no longer considered part of the militia? Hey, I might be old, tired and fat and not as good as I once was, but I’m as good once, as I ever was. I’d hate to think that this 45th birthday thing could be used as a loophole for the anti’s to come knocking on my door asking for my “arms” to be surrendered since I’m too old to be part of the militia by the definition given of all able bodied men between 18 and 45.

Don’t feel left out, Joe. The “unorganized militia” or “draft pool” will vary, the Gov’t adjusting the qualifying age range to suit the needs of the country.
I’m just wondering when they will include our mothers, wives, and daughters as part of the “unorganized militia”.

I think when this was written,it was a way to make sure old men weren’t being pressed into service,a liberal would agree that what they meant was men 45 or older can’t be trusted with firearms,it would be another group they could disarm.The government is trying that angle where they can put everybody into a certain category and then make it illegal for that category to own firearms.I’m sure they would have taken volunteers 45 or older if they were willing and able.If they had a law like that now,I would have to volunteer being that I’m over 45 but if it were a righteous cause,I’d be the first in line.If I were alive and over 45 during the civil war,I would have volunteered to fight for the Confederacy,I’m surprised that to this very day,the US government allows Southern White men to own firearms.If they outlaw guns I would be willing to bet that Southern White men will be the last to have guns because we aren’t really happy with the federal government to start with,they have really pissed us off over the last six years.

I have been studying this Militia thing for a few months, and I have come to several conclusions.
First: Duties of Citizens.
1. Participate in the political process (at least by voting)
2. Stand to Jury Duty.
3. Participate as a member of the Constitutional Militia.
It doesn’t matter how old or young, able or infirm: EVERYONE is responsible to participate, and should do so as they are able. After all, no modern organization can exist without a “Support Tail.”
Second: Functions of the Militia:
1. Repel foreign invasion
2. Put down rebellion
3. Assist with natural disasters
4. Be a check against government tyranny – by government at any level.
I live in Washington State – and we have an (unconstitutional) anti-militia statute: No one may form a “private” army and “parade” them. The statutory “unorganized militia” is the “State Guard” which is kept toothless. Anyone who attempts to revitalize the Militia gets stepped on.
One sure way to bring back the needed Liberties in this country is to Revitalize the Constitutional Militia; to repeal “anti-militia” laws; to pass legislation which recognizes and empowers the Citizen Militia, which punishes government officials who punish legal Militia groups; which promotes liaison between Militia Groups and County and State authority; which requires that Militia units, to be recognized, must adhere to standards of loyalty to state and federal constitutions, to be inclusive (no one excluded because of race, religion, ethnicity, or gender), to meet standards of training and equipage.
Our country would be better prepared for disasters (natural AND man-made); and likely we would need fewer instead of more federal and local police in order to achieve local, state, and national security.
Bruce: I am interested in your book.

There should be an amendment to the constitution that states,this constitution does not apply to citizens that don’t live up to their responsibilities as citizens of the United States.A list of responsibilities should follow this statement.

The main responsibility of a public servant/politician holding public office is to uphold the constitution,if these public servants,police officers,teachers,public office holders,soldiers,are convicted of not upholding the constitution,they shall be barred from holding a public office or a job in any of these fields.

The problem with citizens is that they become apathetic and dishonorable,they choose to put their personal lives before the life of the country,they want all of the freedoms but none of the responsibility that comes with being a citizen of the United states.If this were the case,there would be millions of liberals out of work because they believe the constitution is outdated and “unfair”.They also choose to ignore the constitution because it doesn’t fit with their system of beliefs,the main reason this country became so great was the constitution,if we allow people that disagree with it to take power and ignore our rights guaranteed by the constitution,this country will cease to be great.

Excellent work. My only (minor) beef with the essay is the lack of attention given to the influence of the so called incorporation doctrine on interpretation (and application) of the Bill of Rights. Not only within the courts, but also within the minds of the common People. I hope the author has plans to address the issue in another chapter of the book. Meanwhile readers may be interested in reading Raoul Berger’s excellent book on the subject – Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“State” doesn’t necessarily mean a particular geographical or political entity.

Here’s the first google hit on “define:state”:
=====================================
state
/stāt/
Noun
The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time: “the state of the
company’s finances”.
…
Synonyms
noun. condition – status – situation – position – country
=====================================

ergo, “a Free State” means a condition, status, situation, or position of Freedom – it has nothing to do with government at all.

I’d like to see a president deliver a “State of the Union” address where he says, “So far, the state of the Union is still Freedom!”

But this will be as hard to promulgate as the fact that all of the mass shootings have taken place in “gun-free” zones, and will be totally blanked out by the grabbers/tyrants.

You are an idiot. The word “infringed” as you point out in your own article meant (in 1787) that the right to keep and bear arms should not be broken. Simply putting a limit or a regulation or a registration on it does not break that right. Same thing as voting – you have to register to vote and in some states provide a government issued ID. That (according to the courts) does not violate or break that right. SAME THING.

Better be careful, kitty Kat. Soon some politician may want to make public slander a felony, and then where will all your supposedly goverment granted rights end up? As a matter of fact, voter registration was instituted to help prevent ballot stuffing. Your argument is invalid, but please try to be civil if at all possible. I mean, unless you are still in the fourth grade. Lol
Another valid point the author made was that these rights are not “granted” by the goverment. They are granted because of your United States citizenship. The Constitution (and subsequent Bill of Rights) have been written to guarantee they could not be taken away. You may not like it or agree; but that does not make it untrue. There are even states (Pennsylvania to be one of them) that find it unconstitutional for registration records of firearms to be kept. Although in their case, the State Police still somehow mandate registration of handguns iirc